Yeeeah I didn't want to do that cuz you really don't seem to be the kind of person that would adamantly defend compulsory sex? (god what a horrifying phrase)

The only people I know for sure would get behind an idea like that are usually MRA's or PUA's and even then sometimes people who identify as PUA aren't that horrifying._________________Samsally the GrayAce

My only problem re:... all of this, sex positive, sex negative, whatever... is when sex gets touted as ALWAYS a good thing. I'm not sure if this is something -either- group really prescribes to, when questioned, but it's one of those all-around impressions [...] either slut-shaming or sex moralism

this the reason I'm not coming down fully on either side, just bringing up the topic risks you getting accused of one or the other.

Samsally wrote:

Sex is great -for some people- and they shouldn't be made to feel guilty or wrong for wanting it. But at the same time, it's pretty shitty to make people feel bad when they don't want it and they don't ever want it.

I wasn't going to bring this up as it is a personal issue for me that I'm still trying to figure out, but since you mentioned it, this is the issue that most directly appealed to me about sex negative feminism and the implication that this didn't conform with a sex positive attitude is reason I felt myself leaning towards some of the ideals of sex negative feminism.

sam wrote:

like myself I have to accept as fact that most every time I clarify my ideological stance as sex-positive feminism [...] I will immediately have to confront accusation by association that I'm promoting compulsory sexuality

I hope I didn't give you the impression that I was ever of that opinion. I have a general idea from your previous postings as to your attitudes toward such things, so none of that ever even occurred to me.
I do appreciate your input into this topic, as I've mentioned, I'm still trying to understand the terminology and ideological tenets of these groups and the information from your posts was helpful in that respect.

sam wrote:

The LGBT community has some ... broad tendencies towards factionalism and perpetual drama over labels and groups and identities, so not wanting to saddle yourself with a label? all the better. Foregoing labeling entirely is an entirely approvable move.

This is another problem I've been running into quite a bit lately and, while it's been rather important for me to figure out my own identity, that advice is something I've started to seriously consider lately._________________FormerlyGreen_Finn

I hope I didn't give you the impression that I was ever of that opinion. I have a general idea from your previous postings as to your attitudes toward such things, so none of that ever even occurred to me.
I do appreciate your input into this topic, as I've mentioned, I'm still trying to understand the terminology and ideological tenets of these groups and the information from your posts was helpful in that respect.

don't worry, I didn't get that impression at all! i would not categorize sinfest as being within identity politics circles (thank god) and haven't gotten that sentiment here much?

I just had an odd thought that may or may not have been addressed here.

First, I'm assuming that sex workers are paid the rates they are, at least in part, because the do work that others won't do. If porn (and sex work in general) were de-stigmatized, would it still be as profitable for the workers? More so?_________________...if a single leaf holds the eye, it will be as if the remaining leaves were not there.http://about.me/omardrake

overall (especially internationally) it is assumed a great more of a share of total profits would end up in the pockets of sex workers rather than doled out by controlling interests (pimps, criminal syndicates, etc) to an extent that largely surpasses how much supply would diminish prices

you could also represent yourself as a sex worker in court for legal issues, unionize or file suits for discrimination, back pay, etc

I never understand newspaper articles who don't moderate their comments sections. I was reading about the recent shooting of the super major creep that wanted to go out and kill all women and the comments are just... o.o Like I understand why many sane people just leave because why the fuck would you want to stick with super major creep 2.0 but if it's your site, it just makes your site look bad._________________www.cobrasphinx.nl

A lot of the creepiest "not all men" and sympathetic-to-the-misogynist comments carry this implication that its totally normal to want to kill women and that only mentally ill people actually do it.

How fucking terrifying is that.

Plus, super uncharitable people who really are mentally ill. Pretty sure there have been studies that show they're more likely to have violence brought down on them than the other way around._________________Samsally the GrayAce

Last edited by Samsally on Mon May 26, 2014 9:51 am; edited 1 time in total

It is so bizarre to me to hear people talking about autism as a reason that someone might go on a rampage. Not all autistic people are the same, obviously, but...from everything I know, autistic people do not appear to be overly violent? Wtf.

And I also wonder if people who think 'mental illness' is the real key to mass murder and other violence, if they think that all things labeled mental illness are equally like to lead to mass murder? Like, are they afraid people with ADD, Dislexia, or OCD are going to come after them with weapons?_________________::crisis mode::